It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this. The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly. I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.

Ahh yes. The "the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders." The irony is that the ďtheoretical tyranny":

- Was NOT elected by popular vote. The blond android was. The electoral college made HIM president.- Wants to confiscate guns without due process.- Wants to sell US public lands to the highest bidder for fracking, strip mining, etc.- Wants to reverse regulations on banks and other financial institutions so they can victimize small account holders/investors and endanger the economy.- Wants to ban immigrants based on race/religion and continue policies of indefinite incarceration. (Talk about a slippery slope we should never go down.)- Wants to privatize our public works program for corporate gain- Endorses privatized prison systems- Continues the militarization of our police forces- Endorses unlawful use of force by those forces- Continues a surveillance state apparatus- Wants to destroy what social safety nets we have - Endorses torture- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis- Seems beholden to repressive, even murderous Russian oligarchs- Denies the rights of LBQT citizens- Considers women second class citizens

And thatís the short list. Or maybe you don't consider all that at least the making of tyranny?

I know it's just the opinion of a single guy. But I agree with George Carlin's attitude on the Cult of the Child. But if I did have kids I'd rather have free children at risk from occasional gunfire (and cars and flu, etc.) than have them live in an authoritarian society.

Be consistent man. You've classified Trump as a tyrant in your post, and have mentioned that it's important to keep weapons because you fear his tyranny and need to fight it. So, when is the revolution?

The problem seems to be that you're totally willing to accept a tyrant rather than take up the arms that you've said are needed specifically for this occurrence . . . and at the same time you're using that to prevent protection for your 'free children'.

It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this. The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly. I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.

Ahh yes. The "the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders." The irony is that the ďtheoretical tyranny":

- Was NOT elected by popular vote. The blond android was. The electoral college made HIM president.- Wants to confiscate guns without due process.- Wants to sell US public lands to the highest bidder for fracking, strip mining, etc.- Wants to reverse regulations on banks and other financial institutions so they can victimize small account holders/investors and endanger the economy.- Wants to ban immigrants based on race/religion and continue policies of indefinite incarceration. (Talk about a slippery slope we should never go down.)- Wants to privatize our public works program for corporate gain- Endorses privatized prison systems- Continues the militarization of our police forces- Endorses unlawful use of force by those forces- Continues a surveillance state apparatus- Wants to destroy what social safety nets we have - Endorses torture- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis- Seems beholden to repressive, even murderous Russian oligarchs- Denies the rights of LBQT citizens- Considers women second class citizens

And thatís the short list. Or maybe you don't consider all that at least the making of tyranny?

I know it's just the opinion of a single guy. But I agree with George Carlin's attitude on the Cult of the Child. But if I did have kids I'd rather have free children at risk from occasional gunfire (and cars and flu, etc.) than have them live in an authoritarian society.

Be consistent man. You've classified Trump as a tyrant in your post, and have mentioned that it's important to keep weapons because you fear his tyranny and need to fight it. So, when is the revolution?

The problem seems to be that you're totally willing to accept a tyrant rather than take up the arms that you've said are needed specifically for this occurrence . . . and at the same time you're using that to prevent protection for your 'free children'.

Holding on to my guns isn't my primary fallback. I'm still holding out hope we can flip the House this year. Maybe even impeach and convict. Just because I want guns to insure our freedoms doesn't mean I want to shift straight into a revolution. I've fought in a war. I'm not under any illusions it's gonna be in any ways fun.

I'm pointing out that you should be consistent. You mock people's seemingly unreasonable fears of that a democracy could ever transition to an authoritarian regime. Right when one of the greatest democracies is transitioning to an authoritarian regime. I'm gonna venture a guess you don't approve of the current administration any more than I do.

You can cite all the statistics and findings you want. I'll even agree with you on most of them. I lived several years in a Euro socialist country. In the right circumstances (wealthy countries with a orderly, homogeneous cultures) gun control can be wonderful. And I'm more than willing to bend on additional US regulation where needed if applied by people who know something about guns. But I'm one of those fuckers Obama says won't let go of his God or his guns. Except I'm more flexible about God and I like Obama a whole lot more than he likes me.

I don't like Trump. He's an awful human being, a terrible leader, and below average intelligence. I disagree with you that the US is transitioning to an authoritarian regime though. Despite the hyperbolic language, you obviously don't believe this either, or you would (allegedly) be starting a revolution with your small arms.

A tyranny might be fought off with a disorganized rabble with a few guns, but it virtually always institutes a new, slightly different tyranny to the it's place. If you have some small arms going up against bio-weapons, tanks, air strikes, and a well trained army you are radically underpowered. The kind of leader who is capable of performing regular terrorist/guerrilla tactics for decades at a time inevitably ends up assuming the role of dictator at the end of the conflict. This leadership gives birth to groups like Al-Qaeda, the Khmer Rouge, ISIS, etc. This has been true in every revolution I can think of for the past hundred years. The whole concept of what you're arguing for is fundamentally flawed, and while it's unlikely (but theoretically possible) that you could overthrow an oppressive regime . . . you're just going to replace it with another one.

FYI - I don't live in a euro homogenous society, and Canada is certainly no more wealthy than the US . . . but gun control works pretty well here.

I think EricL means countries with less poverty rather than countries with high total wealth...

Why don't you think the US is becoming more authoritarian, may I ask?

For his many faults and problems, I don't see much (if anything) that Trump has done to subvert the democratic process. People are more free today than they were in the 30s, where racism was common place in government agencies/policy and out in the open. People are more free to be gay than in the 70s. Heck, people are more free to use pot today than they were in the 90s. Gerrymandering, voter ID laws, small groups in control of large news/communications organizations, and unlimited political donations from corporate entities are all weakenings of democracy that started long before the great orange president came around, and they are concerns . . . But you're not going to fight them with small arms. Even the most strident anti-Trumpist is hard pressed to argue that his Russian collaboration won Trump the election.

As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to. The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate. They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant. They're also harder to shoot.

His Dad was a police officer as well, so sad... What went wrong for this kid to kill his own parents.

The article I saw said he was having mental distress (dellusions, etc) and his parents came to take him home.

Father was not legally allowed to have a gun on campus but perhaps left it in their car where the son retrieved it and took it back to his room and killed his parents.

Other items: I very much resent these leaders taunting each other about war and nuclear destruction. The majority of the rest of us have worked hard for what we have in life. There is truly nothing valid worth starting a war about involving the USA. To me it is akin to screaming "FIRE!" in a theater or airplane. These political blowhards need to leave people alone and stop CAUSING problems on the international stage.

I will very much be voting against the GOP for the foreseeable future. They spend far too much time worrying about little tyrant dictators, gay people and other people's religions than normal people do.

This is 2018. In the USA we ought to be on easy street. We ought to be worry free so we can dream up new ideas and new businesses (aka jobs) to keep us all employed. We ought to be building parks, polishing up our infrastructure, and adding quality of life features to our cities. Instead it seems like our society is ever more an empty shell despite plenty of money available.

The DC people leadership needs to quit taunting the international neighbors. Clearly what Putin, Trump and Kim knows is that war and conflict is very profitable to the wealthy who both benefit from defense spending and society's reconstruction afterwards. They are immune to the terrors and miseries of war anyhow so they don't worry. The rest of us will be coajoled into sending our children to the war machine b/c of themes relating to patriotism and duty to one's country. We risk seeing our families destroyed, our cities and home ruined.

We have serious problems in our country and the leadership want to ignore them and create more. The politicians carry far too much weight in our society. Bring out the engineers and scientists, the doctors and the teachers. Plenty of other people that ought to be in the spotlight than the idiot POTUS.

As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to. The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate. They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant. They're also harder to shoot.

So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though.

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Logged

EricL

As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to. The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate. They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant. They're also harder to shoot.

So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though.

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Again, the blond android, i.e. Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote. And no, war is not fun. I think I said that too. Perhaps I should have mentioned my plan is not to sit on the couch and eat Cheet-Ohs 'till something changes?

As for the US government's ability to put down an insurrection: Yes, No and Yes. Yes, it has huge resources to repress the people and more every day. No, it's not going to be easy, since many servicemen and police will side with the population and the US overall has a poor record at putting down insurgencies. And yes, it's still not a done deal because there are resources available to the government that go beyond mere force to sway the population.

Finally, even if I'm wrong - and I have been on a great many subjects - I'll not relent in the face of the same smug, superior liberalism that did as much to aid Trump as the NRA. Just like I didn't start searching for an exit when he was elected like so many of them but resolved to stay in the US to use hindsight to torture republicans.

Well, back on topic here, my school has received credible threats of violence and morning classes are cancelled. The tightness in my stomach and I'm sure in the stomachs of parents around the country are surely worth putting political divides aside. The tears of dead children's friends and family will follow otherwise. The crass and stupid comments time is over. Time to back meaningful and responsible solutions. I really wish the NRA would stand up, grow a spine and either lead or get the heck out of the way.

Well, back on topic here, my school has received credible threats of violence and morning classes are cancelled. The tightness in my stomach and I'm sure in the stomachs of parents around the country are surely worth putting political divides aside. The tears of dead children's friends and family will follow otherwise. The crass and stupid comments time is over. Time to back meaningful and responsible solutions. I really wish the NRA would stand up, grow a spine and either lead or get the heck out of the way.

As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to. The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate. They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant. They're also harder to shoot.

So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though.

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Again, the blond android, i.e. Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote.

Yep.

55% of Americans bothered to vote in 2016. Of those voters, 49% voted for Clinton. See previous 'voter complacency' comment.

You can only get half of Americans off their asses to vote, but you believe it's going to be possible to organize enough people to stage an armed revolution with small arms against the most powerful modern military in the world? These are the same people who couldn't be arsed to even learn what Snowden revealed regarding common place government surveillance of every citizen. The same ones who meekly take off their shoes, get nekkid body scanned, and happily bend over every time they want to board an airplane. C'mon man, even you must see how goofy the revolution idea is. There's no need to discuss military strategy if the people don't have the will to fight.

That said, let's discuss some military strategy! It's a fun thought experiment. A truly tyrannical government doesn't give a shit about casualties (see Stalin's Soviet Union). They would just quarantine the problem area, release a bio or chemical weapon, and then wait a couple years for the problem to be solved. The problem with the Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy is that it depends on a non-tyrannical government that's going to use kid gloves and allow guerrilla forces to become active, and isn't simply going to make towns disappear without a shot fired.

So, you need a government that is oppressive and tyrannical enough to cause a resistance to rise up . . . but at the same time they have to care enough about their people to avoid using the full might of their military power. And the government has to have been voted in by the very people who you're expecting to rise up against them. Surely you can see how goofy this whole line of reasoning is, and why it's a terrible justification to accept the deaths of tens of thousands every year by gun violence?

How do you prevent a tyranny? It's not from owning a gun. It's by having an educated, informed public, by providing and funding a good public education for all. It's by having free press. It's bringing back the Fairness doctrine. It's NOT having citizen's United. Our true enemy is complacency, not voting, not being informed. Having the general public having access to small arms, is not going to do bupkus. For example, a dictactorship orders the local police to suppress people, take their arms. The police/national guard/military are going to win out over mr John Q. Public. They can always escalate. The only way to win, is for the police, etc to not be brainwashed, and be informed and educated, and moral enough to know, what they are doing is against our democracy and stand down.

As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to. The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate. They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant. They're also harder to shoot.

So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though.

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Again, the blond android, i.e. Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote.

Yep.

55% of Americans bothered to vote in 2016. Of those voters, 49% voted for Clinton. See previous 'voter complacency' comment.

You can only get half of Americans off their asses to vote, but you believe it's going to be possible to organize enough people to stage an armed revolution with small arms against the most powerful modern military in the world? These are the same people who couldn't be arsed to even learn what Snowden revealed regarding common place government surveillance of every citizen. The same ones who meekly take off their shoes, get nekkid body scanned, and happily bend over every time they want to board an airplane. C'mon man, even you must see how goofy the revolution idea is. There's no need to discuss military strategy if the people don't have the will to fight.

That said, let's discuss some military strategy! It's a fun thought experiment. A truly tyrannical government doesn't give a shit about casualties (see Stalin's Soviet Union). They would just quarantine the problem area, release a bio or chemical weapon, and then wait a couple years for the problem to be solved. The problem with the Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy is that it depends on a non-tyrannical government that's going to use kid gloves and allow guerrilla forces to become active, and isn't simply going to make towns disappear without a shot fired.

So, you need a government that is oppressive and tyrannical enough to cause a resistance to rise up . . . but at the same time they have to care enough about their people to avoid using the full might of their military power. And the government has to have been voted in by the very people who you're expecting to rise up against them. Surely you can see how goofy this whole line of reasoning is, and why it's a terrible justification to accept the deaths of tens of thousands every year by gun violence?

Only 1/3 of the citizens of the 13 colonies supported the Revolution. 1/3 weíre Loyalists who actively supported the British. The last 1/3 didnít feel they had a dog in the fight.

Iíll take my ďRed Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasyĒ vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality. Minus the emotional over blown ďtens of thousands killedĒ every year rhetoric. We easily lose much more to traffic accidents every year. Iím much more interested in regulating SUVs. And more and more Iím convinced opioids are a safer, surer bet for American hating terrorists than guns, bombs or WMD.

Iíve stated my opinions. Iím gonna declare victory. Not because I ďwon.Ē Iím convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because Iím not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic. That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

Only 1/3 of the citizens of the 13 colonies supported the Revolution. 1/3 weíre Loyalists who actively supported the British. The last 1/3 didnít feel they had a dog in the fight.

Yep, and if the UK had WMDs and the willingness to use them against your musket bearing ancestors, you'd still be a colony of the UK. The reality is your war of independence was fought at a time and in a way that ensured a relatively equal balance of power. That balance of power is no longer the case. In the USA of today there is no way an armed insurrection by the civilian populace would overthrow the government unless a clear majority of the armed forces were to side with the populace and if that were the case the armed populace would make little difference to the outcome anyway.

Quote from: EricL

Iíll take my ďRed Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasyĒ vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality. Minus the emotional over blown ďtens of thousands killedĒ every year rhetoric. We easily lose much more to traffic accidents every year. Iím much more interested in regulating SUVs. And more and more Iím convinced opioids are a safer, surer bet for American hating terrorists than guns, bombs or WMD.

Iíve stated my opinions. Iím gonna declare victory. Not because I ďwon.Ē Iím convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because Iím not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic. That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

That's fine. Keep your guns. Just don't delude yourself about the reasons. Guns are fun. That's it. And that's all it needs to be because your constitution protects your right to play with your toys.

Anyone who still believes small arms are an effective defense against tyranny REALLY needs to look at what happened in Syria. That war started because of exactly the same thing. People in the Syrian military refused to bomb and kill their own people. None of it mattered because other countries got involved.

If you want to convince those of us who don't want guns to kill our kids not to pass gun control laws, you need to focus on target shooting, hunting, and sport. This "tyranny" argument holds no water anymore.

Anyone who still believes small arms are an effective defense against tyranny REALLY needs to look at what happened in Syria. That war started because of exactly the same thing. People in the Syrian military refused to bomb and kill their own people. None of it mattered because other countries got involved.

If you want to convince those of us who don't want guns to kill our kids not to pass gun control laws, you need to focus on target shooting, hunting, and sport. This "tyranny" argument holds no water anymore.

Not every conflict is nuclear or even involves heavy weapons. You don't think the presence or lack of guns matters to South african land owners now? To Venezuelans? Or to Iranians?

It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It is important to note that neither problem was solved by easy access to firearms.

Very true. What did a black person with a weapon get? A bigger posse running them down. A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.

A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.

What in the world does that have to do with gun rights or gun control? If the guy decided to kill a person who was not a threat, he is a guy that decided to kill another person who was not a threat. Whether he decided to do it with a baseball bat or a gun is secondary and no gun control or bat control law is going to address the fact that he decided to kill a person who was not a threat.

A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.

What in the world does that have to do with gun rights or gun control? If the guy decided to kill a person who was not a threat, he is a guy that decided to kill another person who was not a threat. Whether he decided to do it with a baseball bat or a gun is secondary and no gun control or bat control law is going to address the fact that he decided to kill a person who was not a threat.

Totally. He totally would have killed the guy with a baseball bat if he didn't have a gun, guys.

A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.

What in the world does that have to do with gun rights or gun control? If the guy decided to kill a person who was not a threat, he is a guy that decided to kill another person who was not a threat. Whether he decided to do it with a baseball bat or a gun is secondary and no gun control or bat control law is going to address the fact that he decided to kill a person who was not a threat.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was mostly trying to explain why taking the "fighting tyranny" angle isn't going to work to win over advocates for gun control. Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

Basically, if I don't trust the gun owners around me to keep weapons properly secured or not kill someone because they are angry, how am I supposed to trust you'll be a good judge of tyranny and support that "right" as something that is supposed to be good for me?

...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern. It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms. Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility. Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?

...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern. It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms. Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility. Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?

Any gun owner who does not secure his firearms in a locked cabinet or safe, and allows children in the house is behaving in a reckless way that can get others hurt or killed. Most gun owners in the US fit this description.

...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern. It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms. Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility. Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?

Any gun owner who does not secure his firearms in a locked cabinet or safe, and allows children in the house is behaving in a reckless way that can get others hurt or killed. Most gun owners in the US fit this description.

...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern. It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms. Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility. Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?

I agree with TrudgingAlong's conclusion, if not necessarily their reasoning. To me it's not so much about owners being reckless or irresponsible (although I think your 99.9995% is overly optomistic*) as it is about knowing when the situation justifies the use of weapons.

As an example, right now a significant portion of the US population believes the special investigation by Robert Mueller is a politically motivated witchhunt to remove the president or something along those lines. If he were caught red-handed, guilty beyond doubt, there would still be doubters. If those doubters believed that a corrupt government had framed the president and was actively undermining the executive branch, would it be time for them to pick up arms? This is just a hypothetical example but when the general population tends to hold very strong opinions about issues they have little understanding of, or in some cases believes things that are completely false, do you really feel safer giving them the option to "fight back"?

Pizzagate comes to mind...

*The 500 accidental deaths figure ignores accidental injuries and more importantly, irresponsible gun owners who did not have an accident.

So "guns not locked up, and children in the home" is your metric? Fair enough. But what if the guns are unloaded and not locked up, with ammunition stored elsewhere? Do you consider that to be reckless/irresponsible as well?

Let's stack the deck in your favor, and assume that all 500 deaths resulted from a child finding an unsecured gun (i.e. ignoring accidents by adults, negligent discharge, at the range, etc). We *still* only have a few hundred deaths from accidental discharge, out of 50 million "irresponsible" gun owners. Fine, we're down to 99.999%. Still a *very* low probability. And that's with everything stacked in your favor. If you want to be more realistic, and only include children from age 0-18, you're looking at *maybe* 120 deaths per year. Or in the realm of 1 per 1,000,000 gun owners.

Your point about people's differing tolerance of risk is a good one (see also: rear-facing car seats until age 4). However, that does not account for the relative levels of various types of risk. For example, a whole lot more kids die from drowning and poisoning than from firearms accidents. If TrudgingAlong takes the same level of care with regard to those risks (e.g. cleaning supplies not locked up? Kids won't go there!), that's fine. Otherwise, it exposes an emotionally-driven bias against guns and gun owners.

It has already been mentioned . . . but you keep ignoring all incidents with a firearm that haven't resulted in death. Minor and major injury, close calls that weren't reported.

But there's something else you're overlooking. Houses need to be cleaned, and therefore there's a reason to keep cleaning supplies. Swimming is a normal activity that children learn, and not knowing to swim can be quite limiting to a person. It's necessary to transport children from place to place, and thus car seats are required. These risks are accepted (although most parents take steps to minimize them) because they are necessary to raising a child.

There exists no reason or benefit of any kind to expose children to firearms. I compare it to a pregnant woman having an occasional small drink of alcohol. The risk may be very small . . . but why take it unnecessarily?

It has already been mentioned . . . but you keep ignoring all incidents with a firearm that haven't resulted in death. Minor and major injury, close calls that weren't reported.

But there's something else you're overlooking. Houses need to be cleaned, and therefore there's a reason to keep cleaning supplies. Swimming is a normal activity that children learn, and not knowing to swim can be quite limiting to a person. It's necessary to transport children from place to place, and thus car seats are required. These risks are accepted (although most parents take steps to minimize them) because they are necessary to raising a child.

There exists no reason or benefit of any kind to expose children to firearms. I compare it to a pregnant woman having an occasional small drink of alcohol. The risk may be very small . . . but why take it unnecessarily?

Itís my hobby and Iíd like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad? Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street? A lot of risk there, no?

Itís my hobby and Iíd like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad? Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street? A lot of risk there, no?

There's nothing wrong with showing your kid a hobby of yours. I learned to shoot with my dad too. I also learned to ride a bike without wearing a helmet. My kid wears a helmet while learning to ride his. Why? Even though there's little chance of him dying, there's no benefit to the less safe option. Knowing that most gun owners are careless with their firearms (greater than 50% chance that unsecured guns are lying around) there's just no reason to expose your kid to that kind of risk.

If owning a weapon for self defense, it's hard to understand the logic of locking guns and then keeping ammo in another location. If you have a fear of home invasion, is the potential 'bad man' going to wait while you unlock the gun cabinet and get the ammo out of the cabinet over the sink?

Consider this woman in Idaho who was so terrified at the thought of shopping at Walmart that she took a loaded gun with her while she shopped with her toddler. It didn't end well:

I can see why you'd blame my concern ona distaste for firearms, but that isn't the case at all. I have a strong mistrust of gun owners, yes, but I have good reasons. We're a military family. I hear military members thrown out as some kind of paragons of safe gun use.

Over the last 5 years or so, we've seen one guy my dh served with kill himself with his firearm (that one was a suicide), one guy accidentally kill himself while cleaning his loaded weapon, one guy shoot a roommate while drunk because he thought he was breaking in, and, most recently, a watchstander (person guarding a ship with a loaded weapon) be masted because he decided it was a great idea to pull a YouTube stunt and point his gun at someone in jest. They also had to do a whole lecture to everyone that this was not in any way acceptable behavior.

Oh, and outside the military, there was the neighbor who gave his kid a weapon and the kid thought target shooting in a very urban area in his backyard was a proper use of said weapon. That happened several times, once while I was outside with my kids in their pool. They were terrified and the only reason the cops weren't called is because my next door neighbor ran over to scream at him and it finally stopped happening.

I know I've said this before, but we've talked about owning a gun. I was barred from learning how to shoot as a kid because I'm a girl and from a religious family. I'd still really like to learn how to shoot in a safe environment. We decided against it because we have kids. It was a risk we weren't willing to take with them. Their lives are more important than some fun with a gun. We have let our son learn to shoot at Boy Scout camp on a controlled range. I had no problem with that.

What would it take to trust gun owners with my kids? An assurance the weapons are always locked up, whether loaded or unloaded, because how is anyone supposed to know the difference? I don't trust concealed carry because of a friend who thought putting the gun in her purse was reasonable. A purse that is often put down. All it takes to destroy my kid's life is one bullet, one moment of inattention and one bad decision. One bullet can do terrible things.

Also, as gun owners, I would have so much more respect if you all would advocate for those irresponsible parents to face stiff repercussions! Right now, we throw all that responsibility on our kids. We're supposed to be teaching them about gun safety because that's supposed to be enough. We put zero onus on owners to secure their weapons. ZERO. it's actually the number one thing I'd like to see when it comes to gun control, and it wouldn't keep any of your favorite guns out of your hands. Where, after all, do these school shooters generally get their weapons from? Their irresponsible parents.

It is entirely possible to keep guns safely and to train children to be safe around them too. I have a friend whose dad had guns and I know that he stored them safely, locked up, and I never saw them when I went to her house. If you have guns for hunting or target shooting, you can keep them stored unloaded in a locked gun safe and only taken out to be safely transported for their intended purpose. But - if you believe the guns are for self defense and must be kept loaded and easily accessible, that's when you'll have issues. Those are the guns that kids find and play with and have accidents with. It's also the guns that people use to shoot themselves, which is another rarely discussed side effect of owning a gun.. It's not that gun owners are more suicidal, but that they have a highly effective method readily available, and it's often an impulse decision so locks can deter or delay suicide enough to change someone's mind or get help. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763337/pdf/v058p00841.pdf) Also, riding a bike is not comparable to playing with a gun. That's just a ridiculous statement.

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it? Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it? How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

Over the last 5 years or so, we've seen one guy my dh served with kill himself with his firearm (that one was a suicide), one guy accidentally kill himself while cleaning his loaded weapon, one guy shoot a roommate while drunk because he thought he was breaking in, and, most recently, a watchstander (person guarding a ship with a loaded weapon) be masted because he decided it was a great idea to pull a YouTube stunt and point his gun at someone in jest. They also had to do a whole lecture to everyone that this was not in any way acceptable behavior.

...

What would it take to trust gun owners with my kids? An assurance the weapons are always locked up, whether loaded or unloaded, because how is anyone supposed to know the difference? I don't trust concealed carry because of a friend who thought putting the gun in her purse was reasonable. A purse that is often put down. All it takes to destroy my kid's life is one bullet, one moment of inattention and one bad decision. One bullet can do terrible things.

Wow, you've certainly had more than your fair share of negative experiences, and thank you for sharing. However, I'd like to point out that all of the incidents you pointed out have everything to do with people making poor decisions, and nothing to do with locking up guns. Now, I suppose that if the guns were locked up, that might have solved some of those situations....except they wouldn't have. The suicidal man would have just pulled it out. Cleaning a gun is important for safety reasons. The watchstander is supposed to be armed.

How is someone to know the difference between loaded and unloaded? I have a two-step answer for that:1) ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded (seriously, this is like rule #1 for using a gun)2a) if you know how to check and clear the weapon, do it every time you pick it up (unless you're picking it up in order to fire it)2b) if you don't know how to check and clear the weapon, leave it alone and ask someone else (preferably the owner) to clear it and show you

With regards to the stiff repercussions for irresponsible parents, those already exist. Manslaughter, negligence, etc.

Quote

There exists no reason or benefit of any kind to expose children to firearms.

That's quite the absolute you're stating there. I see one benefit for all children, no matter what your stance on gun control: it is good to expose children to firearms so that when they come across them in real life, as they are certain to do, they can handle it appropriately. We can readily see what happens when people grow up without exposure or understanding--just look at various politicians running around trying to ban "assault weapons" or talking about "shoulder thing that go up," or schools that suspend kids for making a gun gesture with their hands or nibbling their pop tart into the shape of a gun, or even generals who say things like "full semi-automatic."

I'd like to turn around your question: What harm or detriment comes from exposing kids to firearms (in a safe, controlled way, of course)?

I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about the number of school shootings in the U.S.

He was pointing out your inconsistency in comparing all gun deaths (including the 98.6% of gun deaths which are intentional) with fatal bike/car accidents. You were comparing apples to oranges. He was trying to show you which were the more appropriate datapoints to use for your comparison.

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

I'm afraid you're off by two orders of magnitude--270k out of 300M is 0.09% (about 1/1000) :D

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it? Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it? How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

This is a big step up from the callous attitude of "I don't need a gun, so I don't care whether you need a gun" that you see a lot of upper income people exhibit, but it's still a pretty amazing statement.

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

I'm afraid you're off by two orders of magnitude--270k out of 300M is 0.09% (about 1/1000) :D

Yep. My mistake, I forgot to move the decimal over. 0.09% is the correct number.

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it? Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it? How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

This is cherry picking the data a bit to fit your desired conclusion. Also the data is inaccurate.

There are 126M households.3.7M are burglarized.That's about 3% chance your home will be burglarized. 28% of the time, someone is home during the burglary.My numbers show that there's almost a 1% chance your home will burglarized AND someone will be home - maybe your whole family.

I think this is the number people should use when deciding how they should protect themselves, if at all. Your .00009% number is flawed.

We should also note that crime is concentrated, so based on your location your odds could be much higher or lower. I can understand why people in higher crime areas would want to arm themselves.

Using the odds of your being violently victimized by a robbery isn't cherry picking the data any more than ignoring all the accidental injuries that happen and using only the firearms deaths.

It would seem however, that my point was missed. Which is that despite low odds of being victimized by a home invader, a lot of people choose to keep guns because of the risk. It's not significantly more unreasonable to want to keep your kid out of a home that likely has unsecured firearms lying around somewhere.

If you know of any parents arrested and convicted after their kid accidentally killed someone, I'd love to read it. I've read exactly zero stories of this. I do think it's possible there is a law somewhere in some state, but it seems to be disregarded.

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

I'm afraid you're off by two orders of magnitude--270k out of 300M is 0.09% (about 1/1000) :D

Yep. My mistake, I forgot to move the decimal over. 0.09% is the correct number.

The US population is roughly 300 million. About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt). That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it? Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it? How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

This is cherry picking the data a bit to fit your desired conclusion. Also the data is inaccurate.

There are 126M households.3.7M are burglarized.That's about 3% chance your home will be burglarized. 28% of the time, someone is home during the burglary.My numbers show that there's almost a 1% chance your home will burglarized AND someone will be home - maybe your whole family.

I think this is the number people should use when deciding how they should protect themselves, if at all. Your .00009% number is flawed.

We should also note that crime is concentrated, so based on your location your odds could be much higher or lower. I can understand why people in higher crime areas would want to arm themselves.

Using the odds of your being violently victimized by a robbery isn't cherry picking the data any more than ignoring all the accidental injuries that happen and using only the firearms deaths.

It would seem however, that my point was missed. Which is that despite low odds of being victimized by a home invader, a lot of people choose to keep guns because of the risk. It's not significantly more unreasonable to want to keep your kid out of a home that likely has unsecured firearms lying around somewhere.

you are still using averages as a substitute for the actual risk people face. You are also using averages of only burglaries, when burglaries aren't the only risk. Plenty of people love in very safe areas but occasionally have to work in or drive through a much more dangerous area.

you are still using averages as a substitute for the actual risk people face. You are also using averages of only burglaries, when burglaries aren't the only risk. Plenty of people love in very safe areas but occasionally have to work in or drive through a much more dangerous area.

You mean like using average numbers of death as a substitute for the risk that a child faces when entering the home of a gun owner? FYI - about 16 kids are hospitalized for firearms injuries every day, and that the majority of the injuries for under 15 years old are unintentional. - http://www.aappublications.org/news/2017/05/04/PASFirearmInjuries050417

I was talking about the more than half of all gun owners who keep unsecured guns in the home. Working/driving through a dangerous area doesn't require that the gun remain unsecured in a home.

If you know of any parents arrested and convicted after their kid accidentally killed someone, I'd love to read it. I've read exactly zero stories of this. I do think it's possible there is a law somewhere in some state, but it seems to be disregarded.

I found this one of a father convicted of man slaughter after his 11 year old son shot and killed his 3 year old. Sad story. Also note this type of conviction is extremely rare.

The conviction is rare. Toddlers shooting themselves and others due to gun owner negligence is not . . . these incidents happen roughly one per week.

This kind of event is miserably hard for all people involved. I don't think that jail time is really going to be of benefit to the families or to society. Anyone who has proven that they cannot be trusted with firearms in this way should immediately receive a permanent and lifetime ban on owning a firearm though. Most gun owners oppose this idea because they hate the idea of anyone taking personal responsibility for their actions though.

you are still using averages as a substitute for the actual risk people face. You are also using averages of only burglaries, when burglaries aren't the only risk. Plenty of people love in very safe areas but occasionally have to work in or drive through a much more dangerous area.

You mean like using average numbers of death as a substitute for the risk that a child faces when entering the home of a gun owner? FYI - about 16 kids are hospitalized for firearms injuries every day, and that the majority of the injuries for under 15 years old are unintentional. - http://www.aappublications.org/news/2017/05/04/PASFirearmInjuries050417

I was talking about the more than half of all gun owners who keep unsecured guns in the home. Working/driving through a dangerous area doesn't require that the gun remain unsecured in a home.

Well, I would expect people to make their own determinations based on their actual knowledge, and not an average that may or may not reflect anything close to the actual risk.

But also note that of the 16 "kids" are hospitalized for firearms everyday, it doesn't give the breakdown of how many were unintentional injuries versus how many were victims of assault. I suspect that a huge number of that 16 will be victims of gang members (and also a large number of those will actually be gang members, not just innocent bystanders). They're intentionally conflating two different issues, and using the major problem with gang violence to over inflate the also real, but much smaller problem, of accidental firearm injuries to children.

Well, I would expect people to make their own determinations based on their actual knowledge, and not an average that may or may not reflect anything close to the actual risk.

People are generally pretty bad at doing this. The human brain is a poor judge of risk by design. You've got an intuitive risk analyzer running all the time that tends to preempt more logical thinking. You're hardwired to over-react to perceived 'immediate threats' and under-react to more theoretical potential threats. You're hardwired to over-react to intentional actions and to under-react to accidents.

If you know of any parents arrested and convicted after their kid accidentally killed someone, I'd love to read it. I've read exactly zero stories of this. I do think it's possible there is a law somewhere in some state, but it seems to be disregarded.

I found this one of a father convicted of man slaughter after his 11 year old son shot and killed his 3 year old. Sad story. Also note this type of conviction is extremely rare.

Okay, there is one! I'd agree jail time is probably just a compounding of the situation, though. A record for him, yes, banning of firearms for life, yes, community service, etc, better solutions. Jailing and charging the kid is problematic, and is an example of how I feel the kids are unfairly gaining the blame. It says he did it "without malice" which implies he was playing around. If he didn't intend to hurt anyone, why should he be saddled not only with the terrible knowlege he killed his brother, but also a prison term?

I do wonder if gun owners don't advocate for personal responsibility laws with weapons because they worry they will eventually get burned by their own behavior. Easier to throw the blame on the child shooter.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.